EPA accused of pro-industry bias
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Jeff Nesmith
Published April 12, 2004
WASHINGTON -- A proposed federal rule to control mercury pollution by electric power plants is so biased in favor of industry that it threatens to undermine enforcement of the Clean Air Act, senators charged Monday.
Six Democrats and one independent called for an investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency inspector general of the agency's procedures in writing the rule.
They said the proposed regulation contains verbatim language written by industry lawyers and false information inserted by the White House. There was no immediate response from the EPA.
When mercury is consumed by a pregnant woman, most often when she eats fish, it can cause her baby to be born with brain damage.
Although the effect can be severe in individual cases, a report by the National Academy of Sciences warned in 2000 that mercury poisoning of unborn babies in America probably results in an overall increase in the number of children "who have to struggle to keep up in school."
The EPA has estimated that each year 630,000 newborns in the United States, or nearly one in six, have dangerous levels of mercury in their blood.
The new rule would require owners of power plants that burn coal or oil to install the "maximum available control technology" for removing mercury gases from their smokestacks. The agency was under a court order to issue the rule.
However, power plant owners, led by Southern Co. in Atlanta, have argued against strict mercury controls, saying reliable technology does not yet exist for removing the toxic metal from smoke. Environmentalists challenge this assertion.
The seven senators charged that the regulation was written to meet such weak standards that it "subverts the [Clean Air] Act's requirements in favor of industry arguments and outcomes."
"Congress and the public need to know whether EPA's rule-making process can be trusted to put the public's health first," said Sen. James Jeffords (I-Vt.), former chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Joining Jeffords in signing the letter were Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Barbara Boxer of California, Tom Carper of Delaware and Ron Wyden of Oregon.
"I think it's absolutely necessary to have this kind of investigation," said Felice Stadler, a mercury pollution specialist with the National Wildlife Federation who served on an expert advisory committee convened by the EPA when it started drafting the mercury rule during the Clinton administration.
The committee, chaired by Dayton, Ohio, regional air pollution control director John Paul, included representatives of power companies, environmental groups and health advocacy organizations. It held 14 meetings and submitted four separate recommendations, ranging from stringent controls advocated by environmentalists to far less stringent controls proposed by industry representatives.
Agency officials announced they would analyze the proposals and reveal the results at an April 2003 meeting of the panel, according to Paul and others. That meeting was canceled.
EPA ultimately issued a proposed rule that would result in the removal of even less mercury than power company representatives had recommended.
Later, leaked internal memorandums showed the proposed rule incorporated language that power company lobbyists had submitted on the side, without going through the advisory panel.
Before the proposed rule was made public, it was reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget. The seven senators charged that during this review, OMB officials deleted language that showed that the EPA had not evaluated the effect the rule would have on the safety of children, a federally required study. In its place, the White House agency inserted the untrue assertion that such a study had been conducted, the senators said.
In addition to proposing a rule requiring specific mercury control technologies, the agency proposed an alternative "cap-and-trade" plan that would set overall limits on particular pollutants, then leave it up to individual companies either to meet their own targets or to buy "credits" from other companies that exceed theirs.
